I had no idea of the depth with which libraries can contribute to urban renewal and gentrification. The presentation provided the right mix of pictures and facts to effectively communicate their topic's nuances. I have two observations: They should have emphasized the beehive like atmosphere of the Salt Lake City Public Library and its subtle cues to that state's predominately Mormon population. They also should have engaged the controversy of gentrification a little more heartily; I have little compassion for homelessness but only slightly more for people who object that wealthier Americans are buying cheap properties, fixing them up, and enjoying a bohemian bourgeois lifestyle in an area formerly populated by working class whites before industries moved outward/southbound/overseas and colored folks moved in. Yes, property taxes are going up. If you own your home, sell it. If you rent, do you really care where you live anyway? Madison living space ordnance prevents the building of new homes and flats downtown and compels developers to buy out entire blocks to construct massive apartment buildings and create such population density that it gets even harder to find a place to sit down on the bus. I'm curious if the compassionate souls fighting gentrification would prefer urban/suburban sprawl instead?
I have no comments about the banned books presentation except that time shortage compelled me to skip my unwritten (but still scripted) portions pertaining to the role of librarians better arbiters of fact and truth than a partisan educational body and that no one knows how to pass books along to the rest of the class. I got to look at Heather Has Two Mommies but none of the others because they were immediately passed back or, in the case of And Tango Makes Three, read by a single person.
By the time the Big Box Store/Coffeeshop segment came I was too anxious about their time crunch to pay much attention. Rachel was too dismissive of Coffman, as evidenced by at least two members praising aspects of his essay, and was too flamboyant for the time allowed. Even with Sara pushing her along after her PowerPoint mishap she kept going, and going. I've told her that she is wayyy too in to being Jewish. Her pronunciation of "Coffman" as "Kauf-munn" and "tawlk" instead of "talk" are just two examples of needless flourish that helped put their group past time. Granted they had only 35 minutes to begin with but they still went 5 minutes over their allotted time. The third to last presenter, if you include Rachel's allegedly abbreviated conclusion, was painful to watch as he struggled to communicate his topic. I'm still not sure what it was, actually. Their last non-Rachel presenter, just like Karl in Banned Books, was gracious and quick without sounding dumb. Clearly he had more to say but couldn't in good conscience subject us to a longer class.
I was very frustrated for the entire class because I knew we would run long or have to shorten our presentations. Three peers took Alan's call for constructive criticism to the Nth degree and held up class for another 7 minutes after everyone else turned theirs in. My attempts to guilt them to finish, namely shouting for anyone who cared to hear "Don't think that because you already presented you can hold up the rest of us," seemed to stall them further. Based on conversations with my classmates, I'm confident the surveys have a lot in common and therefore extra effort on their part meaningless. A less wasteful way to survey would have been filling out the forms during an extended break of 15 or 20 minutes rather than the 15 minute survey time and the 10 minute break we ended up getting.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Presentations, part 1
I know several of the members on the One City One Book team and so criticism over content would be more difficult than criticism on form. I will focus on form.
The use of that program allowing them to move across the country gave their presentation an original flair and was definitely relevant to their geographical emphasis, but the limited point-by-point access necessitated that salmon colored handout. I would have preferred a PowerPoint like bullet system. The handout was nicely formatted but two whole sections were incorrectly/poorly labeled. At first glance it is bizarre to put PROS second and CONS sixth as these are good introductions which can be elaborated upon later. The group's concept should have been acceptably explained through supplementary material--if a library school student didn't know about it already--and allow a modicum of detail before they got into the nittygritty. All of their cons in the CONS section, which was named "Issues" in presentation but not the handout, were already referenced. They were also in the wrong order in the handout.
Had they done PowerPoint and spoke out of order rather than printed a handout I'm sure these issues would seem much less important. Instead they made the extra effort without quite meeting it.
My ignorance of E-Readers, such as what the heck "e-ink" is, makes that presentation much more interesting and enlightening. Since I don't get into the politics of being a librarian and I see myself more as an archivist, I have a hard time caring about reading disabled people. If a person has difficulty reading words or holding a codex, I hardly see it as their right that publishers and developers must bow to their wide ranging disabilities. Having never known, at least to my knowledge, any dyslexics, and as someone who has recovered without medication from alleged brain chemistry problems, I am skeptical of invisible mental disorders and wonder why we're handicapping society and encouraging people who can't rub two sentences together to enroll in college and press for their rights to have their books read to them. Be like the deaf community, the first group of citizens to latch onto and rely upon two-way pagers, buy an iPad that let's you watch TV. Meanwhile you can overcome your mental handicap as you sling coffee or bar tend for the rest of your life.
Perhaps I shouldn't write these when I'm already angry?
The use of that program allowing them to move across the country gave their presentation an original flair and was definitely relevant to their geographical emphasis, but the limited point-by-point access necessitated that salmon colored handout. I would have preferred a PowerPoint like bullet system. The handout was nicely formatted but two whole sections were incorrectly/poorly labeled. At first glance it is bizarre to put PROS second and CONS sixth as these are good introductions which can be elaborated upon later. The group's concept should have been acceptably explained through supplementary material--if a library school student didn't know about it already--and allow a modicum of detail before they got into the nittygritty. All of their cons in the CONS section, which was named "Issues" in presentation but not the handout, were already referenced. They were also in the wrong order in the handout.
Had they done PowerPoint and spoke out of order rather than printed a handout I'm sure these issues would seem much less important. Instead they made the extra effort without quite meeting it.
My ignorance of E-Readers, such as what the heck "e-ink" is, makes that presentation much more interesting and enlightening. Since I don't get into the politics of being a librarian and I see myself more as an archivist, I have a hard time caring about reading disabled people. If a person has difficulty reading words or holding a codex, I hardly see it as their right that publishers and developers must bow to their wide ranging disabilities. Having never known, at least to my knowledge, any dyslexics, and as someone who has recovered without medication from alleged brain chemistry problems, I am skeptical of invisible mental disorders and wonder why we're handicapping society and encouraging people who can't rub two sentences together to enroll in college and press for their rights to have their books read to them. Be like the deaf community, the first group of citizens to latch onto and rely upon two-way pagers, buy an iPad that let's you watch TV. Meanwhile you can overcome your mental handicap as you sling coffee or bar tend for the rest of your life.
Perhaps I shouldn't write these when I'm already angry?
Monday, December 6, 2010
You Can't Spell "Reaction" Without "React"
I'm glad that Robbins touched on the difficulties of contemporaneous empathy when it comes to the Cold War and anticommunism. Having been born in 1985, my real-world exposure to the Red Menace was limited to the gradual phasing out of school maps that still included the USSR. Our early education on the American Revolution referred correctly to our independence from "England", rather than the "United Kingdom" as it was called some time later, and adults often used them interchangeably into the present. The Russian SSR was the key member of the USSR and followed a similar pattern which continued to beguile us. Perhaps that contributed to my eventual sub-specialization in Russian studies which, together with my relative youth, allows me to see Russian communism more objectively. As an American patriot I believe our system is superior given its adaptability rooted in pragmatism rather than idealism, as a student of history I can see how the Soviet system was doomed for internal and external reasons, but I have great difficulty putting myself in the shoes of people who feared communists were under their beds or hiding in their closet.
The USSR were technically allies, perhaps better to say respectfully neutral and assuming the worst was to come, and Russian forces bore the brunt of wartime casualties in a bloody struggle which killed tens of millions while the other allies bided their time to invade North Africa, Italy, and finally France. Those members of the American Legion faced a smaller and weaker German army precisely because the USSR threw their lives into the conflict.
This anticommunism extends into the institutionalized racism of the US during this time. It's always disappointing that white settlers, introduced to punish the treacherous Indians, adopted and maintained a similar racism practiced by the slave holding Indians who were removed from their native lands so whites could grow tobacco, cotton, rice, and indigo. Society and individual behaviors feed off each other to create irrational manifestations of our hopes and fears but for the life of me I can't understand how people can justify certain actions. I cannot recall who uttered this in Dismissal... but one of the charges against Ruth Brown was that her media exposure threatened the progress of local Negros: I've heard this same claim made in my studies of civil rights in the 1960s.
Phrases like that should be dubbed "2/3s phrases." One-third of the population will hear it and know it's an out and out lie but say it to deflect criticism, another third will identify it as a compromise that will quell agitation and restore peace, and another third will realize its absurdity but be overwhelmed by the other two-thirds. A similar claim can be made about gay marriage. There will always be a segment which feels homosexuality has no Godly right to exist who will be allies with morally conservative people who don't want gay people to further dilute the permanence of unions.
Particular to Ruth Brown, the logic of the conservative -villers aggravated me to no end. Particularly on page 73 when, after saying she did not consider herself having committed great harm, was asked the loaded question "Miss Brown, if you remain here as a librarian would you agree to do nothing more that would harm Bartlesville?" This is what happens when ad hoc citizens committees which have little to no expertise mandate policies under the guise of public accountability. They were little more than a professional lynch mob by committee with the intention to subvert the autonomy of a public institution with an avowed professional commitment to grant access to more information rather than less and facilitate thoughtful questions. I'm not the type of LIS student who got into the school with a political ax to grind--I just really want to be an archivist--but this sort of behavior stems from public hysteria and irrationality. This shit continues to the present and usually the actions of conservatives who fear loss rather than liberals who dream what could be improved. Lefties possess some crazy and irrational ideas as well--but they are usually unrealized aspirations watered down by conservative circumstances rather than the established norm struggling for survival.
Reaction is rarely celebrated in history texts because it is often based on intolerance, prejudice, and comparatively has a clear and present enemy rather than a sympathetic victim so often the subject of social history. Just look at our fiction--even the 1950s era Captain America Commie Basher was rendered an imposter by the Marvel retcon because we like our creative works to, in some ways, reflect our ideals. Real-life bigotry at a substantial enough level conveyed to the reader beyond mere standard practice makes an unsympathetic character indeed. I'm glad Cap got frozen and stands up for America once again.
The USSR were technically allies, perhaps better to say respectfully neutral and assuming the worst was to come, and Russian forces bore the brunt of wartime casualties in a bloody struggle which killed tens of millions while the other allies bided their time to invade North Africa, Italy, and finally France. Those members of the American Legion faced a smaller and weaker German army precisely because the USSR threw their lives into the conflict.
This anticommunism extends into the institutionalized racism of the US during this time. It's always disappointing that white settlers, introduced to punish the treacherous Indians, adopted and maintained a similar racism practiced by the slave holding Indians who were removed from their native lands so whites could grow tobacco, cotton, rice, and indigo. Society and individual behaviors feed off each other to create irrational manifestations of our hopes and fears but for the life of me I can't understand how people can justify certain actions. I cannot recall who uttered this in Dismissal... but one of the charges against Ruth Brown was that her media exposure threatened the progress of local Negros: I've heard this same claim made in my studies of civil rights in the 1960s.
Phrases like that should be dubbed "2/3s phrases." One-third of the population will hear it and know it's an out and out lie but say it to deflect criticism, another third will identify it as a compromise that will quell agitation and restore peace, and another third will realize its absurdity but be overwhelmed by the other two-thirds. A similar claim can be made about gay marriage. There will always be a segment which feels homosexuality has no Godly right to exist who will be allies with morally conservative people who don't want gay people to further dilute the permanence of unions.
Particular to Ruth Brown, the logic of the conservative -villers aggravated me to no end. Particularly on page 73 when, after saying she did not consider herself having committed great harm, was asked the loaded question "Miss Brown, if you remain here as a librarian would you agree to do nothing more that would harm Bartlesville?" This is what happens when ad hoc citizens committees which have little to no expertise mandate policies under the guise of public accountability. They were little more than a professional lynch mob by committee with the intention to subvert the autonomy of a public institution with an avowed professional commitment to grant access to more information rather than less and facilitate thoughtful questions. I'm not the type of LIS student who got into the school with a political ax to grind--I just really want to be an archivist--but this sort of behavior stems from public hysteria and irrationality. This shit continues to the present and usually the actions of conservatives who fear loss rather than liberals who dream what could be improved. Lefties possess some crazy and irrational ideas as well--but they are usually unrealized aspirations watered down by conservative circumstances rather than the established norm struggling for survival.
Reaction is rarely celebrated in history texts because it is often based on intolerance, prejudice, and comparatively has a clear and present enemy rather than a sympathetic victim so often the subject of social history. Just look at our fiction--even the 1950s era Captain America Commie Basher was rendered an imposter by the Marvel retcon because we like our creative works to, in some ways, reflect our ideals. Real-life bigotry at a substantial enough level conveyed to the reader beyond mere standard practice makes an unsympathetic character indeed. I'm glad Cap got frozen and stands up for America once again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)